NOTICE OF MOTION TO
MODIFY THE JANUARY 20, 2000
ORDER OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Supplemental Declaration of Robert
W. Schumann, dated April 3, 2000, the Supplemental Declaration of Bruce E.
Boyden, Esq., dated April 3, 2000, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law
In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the January 20, 2000 Order of
Preliminary Injunction and for Leave to Amend the Complaint, and upon all
prior pleadings and proceedings herein, the undersigned will move this Court,
in Courtroom _ before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District
Court Judge for the SoutheRN District of New York, in the Courthouse located
at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, on a date and time to be
set by the Court:

1. For an Order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
modifying this Court's preliminary injunction Order, dated January 20, 2000,
by adding the following to the indicated paragraphs of said order:

a) add to paragraph 2 the name of additional defendant 2600 Enterprises,
Inc., and delete the names of defendants Shawn C. Reimerdes and Roman Kazan,

b) add to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b), after the words "posting on," the language
"or linking to," and insert commas after the words "trafficking in,"

c) revise paragraph 3(b) to read "'CSS' means the Contents Scramble System
used to encrypt, scramble or otherwise protect the contents of certain DVDs
from unauthorized access or copying,"

d) revise paragraph 3(c) to read " 'DeCSS' means any computer program, file
or device that may be used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs
that are protected, or otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded, by
CSS and that permits the unauthorized access or copying of the contents or
any portion thereof,"

e) add (d) to paragraph 3 as follows: "a 'hyperlink' means software instructions
which, when executed, cause a signal to be sent to another location where
data or material can be retrieved for viewing, copying or further transmission,"

f) add (e) to paragraph 3 as follows: " 'linking' means provision by the
defendants, at their respective websites, of hyperlinks to other websites
which are offering to the public, providing, providing hyperlinks to, or
otherwise trafficking in DeCSS or any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof described in paragraph 2(b),"

(see Proposed Modified Order of Preliminary Injunction, attached hereto
as Exhibit A [not provided by 2600]);

2. For an Order, pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
granting plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add 2600 Enterprises,
Inc., to delete references to defendants who have settled, to conform the
prayer for relief to the proposed modifications to the injunction, and to
make other, minor conforming changes (see Proposed Second Amended
Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit B); and

3. For such other and further equitable relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to the individual rules of this
Court, opposing affidavits and answering memoranda of law shall be served
within two (2) weeks of this date.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF ROBERT W. SCHUMANN IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO MODIFY THE
JANUARY 20, 2000 ORDER OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINT

Supplemental Declaration of Robert W. Schumann

I declare, under penalty of perjury, as follows:

1 . I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cinea, LLC, a digital
content security firm. This Declaration supplements my January 19, 2000
Declaration before the Court and is submitted in support of plaintiffs' motion
to modify the preliminary injunction issued in this case on January 20, 2000
and for leave to amend the complaint. In this Declaration, I focus particularly
on the issue of "linking" on the Internet, including:

a. The technical aspects of "hyperlinks" on the Internet, generally; and

b. The particular hyperlinks present on the web site of 2600.com.

I make this Declaration based upon my own personal knowledge, including my
review of the 2600.com web site, the sites to which it is now linking containing
DeCSS, certain standard works on software and Internet-related technologies,
as well as other documents and things referred to in this Supplemental
Declaration. I could and would competently testify to the matters set forth
below should I be called as a witness before this Court.

2. A hyperlink, in the context of the Internet, generally refers to software
instructions which, when executed, cause a signal to be sent to another location
where data or material can be retrieved for viewing, copying or further
transmission. Historically, many of the concepts used in the Internet today,
especially linking, came from many years of research and development into
fields known as HyperText and HyperMedia. These fields describe the building
of formal and informal networks of linked information through which a user
can navigate (browse) to find and retrieve information, media and other elements.
Vannevar Bush first referenced the concept in 1945 and the first crude
implementations were created in the late 1960's and 70's. A significant precursor
to the modern HyperMedia systems came from Apple Computer with the introduction
of its HyperCard help system in 1987. HTML, which stands for Hyper-Text Markup
Language, itself was first introduced in 1990. HTML is an interpreted computer
language which describes the contents, layout, and actions associated with
a "page" of information. The software programs used to execute the HTML,
display the results, and implement the user interaction are commonly known
as "browsers." Hyperlinks are a key element of HTML and are the instructions
which cause the browser to locate and retrieve the "linked-to" item. Thus,
"linking" is shorthand for the hyperlink, and describes the process of tying
together Web pages, or other elements, such that a user can easily locate
and retrieve specific information from a second location described or contained
within the first location (or page). I have attached as Exhibits U and V
respectively true and correct copies of relevant pages of the works [sic]
Elizabeth Castro, HTML FOR THE WORLD WIDE WEB, at I l 7, and Kiersten
Conner-Sax & Ed Krol, THE WHOLE INTERNET: THE NEXT GENERATION, at 302,
both of which provide more in-depth descriptions of linking as used in today's
modern Internet and the world wide web in particular.

3. As use of the Internet has expanded, the use of hyperlinks has grown
considerably. They enable a user to quickly locate and retrieve data from
another file or web site location without having to search and/or manually
input a particular file or site location. Thus, for example, a lengthy text
document may include links to material located elsewhere within the same
document, in a related file, or in another Internet web site. By making that
material readily available through the use of a hyperlink, much time and
effort is saved by the user. All the user need do is "click" on the word,
text, icon or other "signifier" and the user's browser software will execute
the embedded instructions to locate and retrieve the "linked to" material
without further input or keystrokes by the user. Using hyperlinks is also
advantageous because, unlike having to rely on a "search engine" to seek
out and locate relevant material on the Internet using key words, the hyperlink
is essentially a "hard-wired" path with specific instructions directly to
the desired material. This saves considerable user and computational time.

4. Many hyperlinks to other sites are often targeted to the specific place
within the "linked to" site where the desired content appears. As discussed
below, based upon my analysis of the hyperlinks contained on 2600.com, a
considerable number of them go directly to the location on the "linked to"
site where DeCSS appears.

5. Given the utility of hyperlinks to quickly retrieve information or material
at other locations, it is now common for commercially available software,
such as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Frontpage to automatically create hyperlinks
in certain instances. For example, using the Frontpage software, if one types
in a particular web site address in the customary URL format (e.g.,
www.2600.com), the software will automatically convert that "plaintext" reference
into a hyperlink. While it is true that anyone wishing to refer to the places
on the Internet where DeCSS appears may, by typing in the URL information
described above, inadvertently create a hyperlink to that Internet location,
that is not what is occurring at the 2600.com web site, for the reasons described
below.

6. I have reviewed the 2600.com web site and, in particular, its contents
insofar as DeCSS is concerned. At the time of my earlier Declaration in this
case, the list of hyperlinks on the 2600.com site to DeCSS were contained
within the interior of that site in connection with an article dated November
12, 1999 and required the user to take multiple steps before arriving at
the list of 2600 hyperlinks. At that time, one selected "News Archive" from
the 2600.com home page (www.2600.com), then clicked on "November" under the
1999 archive section and clicked "select." This brought up an entry list
of articles. After clicking on "11.12.19 DVD Encryption Cracked," a page
was displayed containing an article. At the end of the article was a list
of hyperlinks to web sites containing DeCSS. In addition, 2600 was, at that
time. also posting DeCSS to its own web site by means of an "interior" hyperlink
between two locations on its own site. At that time, in order to access and
download DeCSS from the 2600.com site, one navigated first to the article
referenced above on the web site and then clicked on the highlighted DeCSS
hyperlink. (See Declaration of Bruce E. Boyden, Esq., in Support of
Plaintiffs' Application for a Preliminary Injunction, dated January 13, 2000
("Boyden Moving Decl.") Ex. 7.)

7. Since the January 20, 2000 injunction, the 2600.com web site has been
reformatted. Now, there is text on the opening page of the 2600.com site
which reads "Help us fight the MPAA by leafletting and
mirroring DeCSS." (Ex. F.) By clicking on the highlighted word
"mirroring," one is linked immediately to another part of the site
where the list of hyperlinks to other DeCSS locations appears. (Ex. B.) By
clicking on any of the hyperlinks in this list, the user is then given direct
access to DeCSS in one or another of the following ways:

b. In a considerable number of other cases, by clicking on the DeCSS hyperlink
appearing on the 2600.com site, the user is presented with the specific page
or directory listing from another web site where a DeCSS hyperlink appears.
When the user clicks on that hyperlink, DeCSS is immediately presented to
the user's computer for downloading, as described in Paragraph 7(a) above.
Examples of this are:
http://altern.org/tekrebel,
http://artun.ee/~rommi/css, and
http://www.geocities.com/cold_dvd.
See, e.g., Exs. H, P.

d. Finally, some of the hyperlinks on the 2600 site, when clicked on, present
the user with another web site location which itself contains hyperlinks
that, when clicked on transport the user to yet another site or page that
presents the user with the downloadable DeCSS utility. This "cascading link"
approach is exemplified by
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/clcktwr,
http://dvdcopy.cjb.net,
http://the.wiretapped.net/wt/dvd,
and http://isupport2600.8m.com.
See, e.g., Exs. J-M. In almost all cases, the link on the 2600
site retrieves that portion of the web page at the "linked to" sites where
the further DeCSS link appears.

8. Although, as stated above, certain computer software makes it possible
to create hyperlinks inadvertently, my analysis of the 2600.com site reveals
that this is not what is being done here. First, it is obvious, based upon
a review of the statements and other text on the 2600.com site, that the
appearance of these hyperlinks is no inadvertent act but, instead, part of
a deliberate effort to proliferate DeCSS as widely as possible. By clicking
on the highlighted word "mirroring" at the 2600.com home page, the
user is presented with a page within the 2600.com site which encourages people
to "mirror" or copy the DeCSS files and put them up on the Internet through
other web sites. That page also requests that 2600 "followers" copy and post
DeCSS to the Internet as part of an effort to continue proliferating DeCSS;
it also requests that they provide 2600 with the web site locations of these
DeCSS postings to enable the 2600 site to "get new links constantly" and
"continue to update the links as long as we're able to." 2600 even goes so
far as to provide a custom set of data entry fields specifically for providing
the "URL" addresses of these mirrored sites. See Ex. B.

9. Because a considerable number of the 2600 hyperlinks take the user directly
to DeCSS, see ¶ 7 above, it is also apparent that the overwhelming
majority of these hyperlinks are designed to furnish the DeCSS utility with
minimal user effort (other than to confirm an instruction to download DeCSS).
It is thus plain that the hyperlinks created by 2600 and the URL information
furnished by the "linked to" site are part and parcel of a deliberate effort
to deliver DeCSS.

10. If the hyperlinks to DeCSS on the 2600.com site are disabled or removed,
that will not, in and of itself, cause any of the postings of DeCSS on the
"linked to" web sites to disappear. Instead, by removing or disabling the
defendants' hyperlinks, the delivery of DeCSS will not be nearly as easy
as it is now because these sites are effectively functioning as a distribution
center for the ready availability and delivery of DeCSS with a few clicks
of a button.

DECLARATION OF BRUCE E.
BOYDEN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
MODIFY THE JANUARY 20, 2000
ORDER OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

BRUCE E. BOYDEN, being an attorney duly admitted to practice before this
Court, hereby declares as follows under penalty of perjury:

1. I am an attorney associated with Proskauer Rose LLP, attorneys for plaintiffs
Universal City Studios, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.; TriStar Pictures, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries,
Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; and
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (collectively "Plaintiffs"), in the
above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the preliminary injunction and for leave to amend the complaint.

2. Since the filing of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
on January 14, 2000, 1 have periodically revisited the web sites of defendants
Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and 2600 Enterprises, Inc. (the "2600
defendants"), at http://www.2600.com. The analysis set forth below and the
Exhibits attached to this Declaration are the result of that continuing
investigation.

3. When Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injullction was filed, the 2600
defendants maintained a so-called "mirror list" -- a list of hyperlinks to
sites where users could go to obtain the illegal DeCSS utility at issue in
this case. The list is contained on the page within the 2600 defendants'
site at
http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227-help.html.
At the time Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was filed, the
mirror list contained approximately 161 hyperlinks. See Declaration
of Bruce E. Boyden, Esq., in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for a Preliminary
Injunction, dated January 13, 2000 ("Boyden Moving Decl.") Ex. 7.

4. At the time that this Court issued its preliminary injunction Order, the
number of hyperlinks on the list remained unchanged. Attached as Exhibit
A is a true and correct copy of the mirror list as it existed on January
24, 2000. (The first page of Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the
text message at the top of the mirror list on January 24.)

5. Shortly thereafter, the 2600 defendants began adding to the number of
hyperlinks on the mirror list. A true and correct copy of the mirror list
as it existed on March 23, 2000 is attached as Exhibit B. The 2600 defendants
added 313 hyperlinks to the mirror list between January 24 and March 23,
and removed 43 hyperlinks that were no longer active; there are now (as of
March 23) a total of 431 hyperlinks on the list, 357 of which are active
(as explained below). The site now (as of March 23) also contains input fields
at the end of the list of hyperlinks, where users arc instructed to "submit
your mirror site containing these files," presumably for inclusion in the
list.

6. The 2600 defendants have also changed the "home page" of their web site
(i.e., the page that users first view when typing "www.2600.com" into their
browsers), since the preliminary injunction was entered. That page now (as
of March 23) features a plea to "STOP THE MPAA", explaining, "Help us fight
the MPAA by leafletting and mirroring DeCSS." When the word
"mirroring" is clicked on, it takes the user directly to the mirror
list on the site. Previously, on February 1, 2000, the 2600 defendants issued
a "CALL TO ACTION" on their home page, requesting readers to "HELP MIRROR
DECSS" and directing them to the mirror list. Attached as Exhibits C through
F are true and correct copies of the "home page" as it existed on February
1, 2000, February 5, 2000, February 7, 2000, and March 23, 2000, respectively.

7. As part of my investigation, I visited every web site linked to by the
2600 defendants via their mirror list. I confirmed, for each "linked-to"
site, whether the DeCSS file was available at the site. I found that, as
of March 23, 74 sites are no longer active, leaving a total of 357 active
linked-to sites on the Defendants' list of hyperlinks. Of those sites, 233
have been added to the list since January 20.

8. Eleven of the hyperlinks on the 2600 defendants' mirror list cause the
immediate downloading of the DeCSS file when clicked on. The user is merely
presented with a screen confirming that downloading should begin. A true
and correct copy of the screen of my computer upon clicking one such hyperlink,
http://www.darkkingz.com/DeCSS.zip,
is attached as Exhibit G.

9. 175 of the hyperlinks on the 2600 defendants' mirror list link to sites
which contain little beyond a hyperlink to the DeCSS file. Attached as Exhibit
H is a true and correct copy of such a "bare-bones" site. Thus, on these
sites, the user effectively is taken directly to the DeCSS utility.

10. 63 of the hyperlinks on the 2600 defendants' mirror list link to sites
which require the user to scroll down a screen or so after clicking on the
2600 defendants' hyperlink in order to find the DeCSS file. Attached as Exhibit
I is a true and correct copy of an example of such a site.

11. Only 18 of the hyperlinks on the 2600 defendants' mirror list link to
sites which require thc user to click again at the new site to reach the
page or site where the DeCSS file is offered. Such sites present the user
with a "cascading link" to the DeCSS file, as defined in the Supplemental
Declaration of Robert W. Schumann in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify
the January 20, 2000 Order of Preliminary Injunction, dated April 3, 2000,
¶ 7(d). When the user clicks on the 2600 defendants' hyperlink, the
user is taken to a site or page that does not itself offer the DeCSS file,
but instead contains another hyperlink that, when clicked on, transports
the user directly to the icon or highlighted script on another page within
that site or to another site that, when clicked on, begins the download of
the DeCSS file. Attached as Exhibits J through K are true and correct copies
of an example of a "cascading link". The page linked to by the 2600 defendants
is attached as Exhibit J; after clicking on the hyperlink marked "here" in
the sentence "Files can be found here" in Exhibit J, the user is taken to
another page on the same site, attached as Exhibit K, which in turn contains
a hyperlink to a DeCSS file. Attached as Exhibits L and M are true and correct
copies of another example of a cascading link, in which the user is taken
from 2600.com to the linked-to site, Exhibit L, and from there (by clicking
on the highlighted text "The DVD crack") to a third site, Exhibit
M, where the DeCSS file can be downloaded.

12. Many of the sites contain proclamations that their owners are posting
DeCSS in aid of or in response to a request by the 2600 defendants. Attached
as Exhibits N through Q are true and correct copies of four such sites. For
example, in the page attached as Exhibit N, the site owner announces, "I
have mirrored this for www.2600.com, please d[own]load it and read there
[sic] story." Another site owner proclaims, "Help support 2600 by mirroring
these files and registering your link as a Mirror." A copy of that site is
attached as Exhibit O. Yet another site owner instructs visitors to "Go to
www.2600.com and read why these files are here." A copy of that site
is attached as Exhibit P. Another site calls upon readers to "Support 2600
in their fight against the industry.... [G]et the DeCSS sources here."
A copy of this site is attached as Exhibit Q.

13. On some of the sites the 2600 defendants link to, the hypertext link
to the DeCSS file is contained in an image rather than in underlined text.
Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of an example of such a site. Clicking
on the image marked "Decss.zip" at the top of the page begins the downloading
of the DeCSS file.

14. All of the above-described hyperlinks on 2600.com (totaling 267) link
to sites which currently offer a copy of the DeCSS file. Of the remaining
90 hyperlinks on 2600.com, 23 link to sites which contain the CSS authorization
source code, and 67 either contain inactive links to the DeCSS file, or lack
DeCSS or the CSS authorization source code altogether. Many of the sites
in the latter category explicitly state that they have removed DeCSS in response
to a request by tlae Motion Picture Association. Attached as Exhibit S is
a true and correct copy of a site from which DeCSS has apparently been removed
by the site owner. The site owner requests that visitors proceed instead
to one of the many other sites still hosting the file. Attached as Exhibit
T is a true and correct copy of a site linked to by the 2600 defendants that
offers the CSS authorization source code file, usually designated as
"css-auth.tar.gz," and other code files, but does not offer DeCSS in the
form of an immediately executable utility.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO MODIFY THE
JANUARY 20, 2000 ORDER OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Preliminary Statement

Faced with the increased efforts of defendants Eric Corley a/k/a/ "Emmanuel
Goldstein" ("Corley") and 2600 Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, the "2600
defendants")1 to proliferate the DeCSS utility in the wake of
this Court's January 20, 2000 preliminary injunction against "posting," and
the Court having determined that a trial will not be held until December
5, 2000, plaintiffs now move, in accordance with the Court's suggestion at
the January 20, 2000 hearing, to (a) modify the Court's Order to prohibit
the 2600 defendants from deliberately "linking" to other Internet web sites
offering DeCSS,2 and (b) for leave to amend the complaint to make
largely conforming changes.3 At least in this context, and under
substantially similar circumstances, posting and linking are substantially
similar activities, and both constitute "providing" or "offering" DeCSS to
the public in violation of section 1201 (a)(2) of the Copyright Act.

____________________

1. This Court properly rejected Corley's claim that he is not the "real party
in interest" because 2600 Enterprises, Inc. was the actual "owner" of the
web site at which DeCSS was posted. See
Memorandum Opinion, dated February 2,2000 ("Mem.
Op.") at 7-8; Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition, dated January 19, 2000
at 6. Corley has since agreed to allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint
to add 2600 Enterprises, Inc. as a defendant, and a stipulation to that effect
will be filed shortly. Defendant Roman Kazan has, since the Court's Order,
entered into a Consent Judgment which prohibits both posting
and linking to DeCSS.
See Consent Judgment Against
Roman Kazan, dated March 17,2000. Defendant Shawn C. Reimerdes has also agreed
to a similar Consent Judgment which will be submitted immediately upon its
execution.

2 This motion is in keeping with the Court's invitation to "deal
with [the 'linking' issue] in the form ... of an application to modify ...."
(See January 20, 2000 Hearing Transcript ("Hr'g. Tr.") at 85.) On a motion
to modify an injunction, the Court "is charged with the same exercise of
discretion it exercised in granting or denying injunctive relief in the first
place." Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
732 F.2d 253, 256 (2d Cir. 1984). The Court may modify
an injunction "when, based on principles of equity, the modification is necessary
to preserve the status quo." Museum Boutique
Intercontinental, Ltd. v. Picasso, 880 F. Supp. 153,
161 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); see also Sierra Club,
732 F.2d at 256 ("An injunction is an ambulatory
remedy that marches along according to the nature of the proceeding," and
which is "executory and subject to adaption as events may shape the need
....").

3 Plaintiffs seek only to amend the complaint
to add a defendant who has already consented to be added, to delete references
to defendants that have since settled, to conform the prayer for relief to
the proposed modifications to the injunction (modifications which, as discussed
herein, are necessitated by developments occurring on the 2600 defendants'
site since the prior amendment), and to make other minor, conforming changes.
(See Proposed Second Amended
Complaint,dated April 4, 2000, attached as Exhibit A to theNotice of Motion to Modify the January 20, 2000 Order of Preliminary
Injunction and For Leave to Amend the Complaint, submitted herewith.)
Under these circumstances, leave should be granted. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (leave to amend a pleading
"shall be freely given when justice so requires");
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962).

Statement of Relevant Facts

On January 20, 2000, this Court preliminarily enjoined the defendants from
"providing," "offering to the public," or "otherwise trafficking in" DeCSS
 an unlawful "circumvention device" within the meaning of the
anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. § 1201 etseq. ("DMCA")  by "posting" the
software utility on any of their Internet web sites. (Hr'g. Tr. at 85.) At
the time the Court issued its injunction, it expressly left open the question
orally raised by plaintiffs at the end of the hearing of whether the 2600
defendants' provision of "hyperlinks" (or "hypertext links") to other web
sites offering the DeCSS utility for downloading fell within the statutory
prohibition against, inter alia,
"offer[ing] to the public, provid[ing], or otherwise
traffic[king] in" illegal circumvention devices.
See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)
(1999). Plaintiffs respectfully submit that any attempt to draw lines between
the 2600 defendants' acts of directly "posting" DeCSS on their own servers
and providing hyperlinks to other postings on other sites is to create a
distinction without a difference.

A "link" or "hyperlink" is a link from one location
on the Internet to a second location on the Internet. "Clicking" on a designated
signifier (e.g, a picture, several
highlighted letters or some other textual indication) at the first location
will take a person to the second location. See Intermatic.
Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp.1227,1232 (N.D. III.
1996). An example of a picture hyperlink (or icon) is presented as
Exhibit R to the Supplemental Declaration of Bruce E. Boyden, Esq., dated
April 3, 2000 ("Supp. Boyden Decl."). An example of a text hyperlink (or
icon) is presented as Exhibit H to the Supp. Boyden Decl. Plaintiffs here
seek to enjoin solely the use of such signifiers by the 2600 defendants so
that the public cannot receive DeCSS by visiting any of the 2600 defendants'
web sites (the clear intention of this Court's prior order).

A hyperlink, in the context of the Internet, generally
refers to software instructions which, when executed, cause a signal to be
sent to another location where data or material can be retrieved for viewing,
copying or further transmission. (See
Supplemental Declaration of Robert W. Schumann, dated
April 3, 2000 ("Supp. Schumann Decl.") ¶ 2.) Hyperlinks enable a computer
user to quickly locate and retrieve data from another file or web site location
without the necessity of searching and manually inputting a particular file
or site location. (Id.
¶ 3.) By making that material readily available
through the use of a hyperlink, time and effort is saved by the user, as
all the user need do is "click" on the word, text, icon or other "signifier"
and the browsing software will execute the embedded linking instructions
to locate and retrieve the "linked to" material without further steps having
to be taken by the user. (Id.)
In particular, the user need not rely on a "search
engine" to seek out and locate relevant material through the use of keywords
that are likely to appear in the desired material  the hyperlink is
essentially a "hard-wired" path with specific instructions directly to the
desired material. (Id.)

Although they are no longer directly posting DeCSS on
their web sites, the 2600 defendants continue to offer and provide DeCSS
to the public by creating hyperlinks directly to other unlawful postings
of DeCSS. (See Supp. Schumann Decl.
¶¶ 4-9; see generally
Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶¶ 3-11.)

At the time plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the 2600
defendants were posting DeCSS at the 2600.com web site by means of an "interior"
hyperlink between two locations within the site. (Supp. Schumann Decl.
¶ 6.) In order to access and download DeCSS from
the 2600.com site, one "navigated" first to the location referenced above,
and then clicked on a highlighted "DeCSS.zip" hyperlink to download it.
(Id.) Currently, by virtue of the
2600 defendants' linking scheme discussed below, a user can still go to the
2600.com site and easily download DeCSS with only a few clicks of a mouse
button  indeed, the site is virtually identical.

There is now (as of March 23, 2000) text on the
page of the 2600.com web site, which states "Help us fight the MPAA by
leafletting and mirroring DeCSS." (Id.
¶ 7;
Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 6.) By clicking on the
highlighted word "mirroring," one is taken immediately to another
page on the 2600.com web site where a list of hyperlinks to other DeCSS postings
appears. (Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶ 7;
Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 6.)4

____________________

4 Prior to adding this language to their home page, but subsequent
to the Court's issuance of the injunction, the highlighted text on the 2600.com
home page read simply "HELP MIRROR
DECSS." (Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 6,
Exs. C-E.)

By clicking on any of the hyperlinks in this list, the user gets direct access
to DeCSS in a number of ways. (Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶
7; Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) The majority
of the hyperlinks currently provided at 2600.com contain DeCSS as a downloadable,
executable utility. (See Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11, Exs.
G-M; Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶ 7.) Some of these hyperlinks start an immediate
download of DeCSS, thereby furnishing the utility without requiring the user
to "click" any further (other than to confirm an instruction to download
DeCSS). (See Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. G; Supp. Schumann Decl.
¶¶ 7, 9.) Other hyperlinks take the user to the specific page or
directory listing on another web site  without requiring the user to
scroll within the site  where a DeCSS icon or highlighted script appears,
which the user need only click on to download the utility. (See Supp.
Boyden Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. H; Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶ 7.) Still others
take the user to a page or site that contains DeCSS, although the
user must scroll down a bit to locate the utility posting before "clicking"
to download it. (See Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 10,
Ex. I; Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶ 7 ) And still others,
when clicked on, present the user with another web site location which does
not itself contain DeCSS, but rather, a hyperlink to another site or page
that does. (See Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 11,
Exs. J-M; Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶ 7 )

Since this Court issued its preliminary injunction, the 2600 defendants have
stepped up and expanded their activities designed to proliferate DeCSS. The
2600 defendants have added 313 hyperlinks to their site since the hearing
on January 20. (Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶ 5, Exs. A
& B.) As noted above, and as more fully
described in the accompanying declarations, the majority of these hyperlinks
cause DeCSS to be downloaded onto the user's computer, with a few mouse clicks,
as quickly and conveniently as it was when DeCSS was posted to the site.
(See Suppl. Boyden Decl. ¶¶ 7-11, Exs. G-M; Suppl. Schumann
Decl. ¶ 7.) In fact, the 2600 defendants are encouraging others on the
Internet to "mirror" or post DeCSS on their own web sites and requesting
that those persons who have joined in such illegal conduct furnish the 2600
defendants with the Internet location(s) where the DeCSS posting appears
and can be downloaded. (See Supp. Boyden Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, EX.
C-F). The 2600 defendants even provide a convenient "entry window" in connection
with their hyperlink list, which enables new DeCSS "posters" to easily submit
their web site location ("URL") to the 2600.com web site. (Id. ) Indeed,
after the January 20, 2000 preliminary injunction, the 2600 defendants
noted that:

update 01/30/00

We continue to get new links constantly. We thank everyone out there for
their support and will continue to update the links as long as we're able
to.

(Id. Ex. B) (emphasis supplied.)

Obviously, it is immaterial to the end user whether he or she acquires DeCSS
through a posting or through a hyperlink to a posting. Thus, through their
ongoing activities, the 2600 defendants are accomplishing what Congress clearly
prohibited  offering and providing to the public unlawful circumvention
devices in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2).

In fact, the 2600 defendants make perfectly clear that
their motive in soliciting and providing these hyperlinks is to "circumvent"
the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order by doing what they are already enjoined
from doing by posting -- providing, offering, and disseminating DeCSS to
the public on the Internet. The expanded list of hyperlinks on the 2600.com
web site is preceded by the following statement:

While we have every intention of sticking this out to the end, we have to
face the possibility that we could be forced into submission. For that reason,
it's especially important that as many of you as possible, all throughout
the world, take a stand and mirror these files . . . Already, a handful of
sites have gone down due to this latest bit of intimidation. We need to replace
them and add to their number.

(Supp. Boyden Decl. Ex. B.)

To be clear, plaintiffs do not seek
to enjoin the 2600 defendants' generalized statements or "reports" about
the "fight" over DeCSS or from expressing their dislike for plaintiffs or
their litigation activities. In the instant motion, plaintiffs only seek
modification of the Court's injunction directed to the linking activity described
herein. As demonstrated below, such activity -- which is virtually
indistinguishable from posting -- violates the anti-circumvention provisions
of the DMCA and finds no protection in the First Amendment. Further, through
this motion, plaintiffs are not asking the Court to enjoin the parties
responsible for the postings of DeCSS at the "linked-to" sites (although
plaintiffs have taken, and will continue to take, action against these third
party "posters" of DeCSS). This Court can, and should, however enjoin defendants
who are properly before it from emasculating the preliminary injunction
by continuing to "provide" DeCSS.

Argument

A. THE 2600 DEFENDANTS' LINKING SCHEME VIOLATES THE
DMCA

1. THE 2600 DEFENDANTS ARE STILL "PROVIDING" DECSS

The facts demonstrate the 2600 defendants are still
"providing" DeCSS in violation of Section 1201 (a)(2) of the DMCA. Although
the DMCA does not define the word "provide," it is a "fundamental canon of
statutory construction" that words not defined in a statute "will be interpreted
as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common-meaning." Perrin v. U.S.,
444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979). The ordinary, common-meaning of "provide" is
to "supply, afford, contribute, make, procure, or furnish for future use."
Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comm. v. Commonwealth
Edison Co., 113 F.3d 1468, 1474 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Black's Law
Dictionary 1224 (6th ed. 1990)). See also
WEBSTER'S II NEW RIVERSIDE
DICTIONARY at 552 (rev. ed. 1996) (defining "provide"
as "1. To supply or furnish (something needed or useful);" and "2. To have
or offer for use.").5 Here, the 2600 defendants have deliberately
set up the 2600.com site to function as a distribution center for the ready
availability and delivery of DeCSS. (See Supp. Schumann Decl. ¶
10.) The site continues to be a place where a user can obtain a download
of DeCSS with a click or two of the mouse. Thus, the 2600 defendants are
"procuring," "supplying," "furnishing" or "offering [DeCSS] for use."
Cf,Central Midwest, 113 F.3d at 1474 (interstate compact
governmental entity would be "providing" for waste disposal within meaning
of federal waste policy statute by allowing a third party to build and operate
a disposal facility); Dower v. Gamba, 276 N.J. Super.319, 326-27,
647 A.2d 1364, 1367-68 (Sup. Ct., App. Div. 1994) (interpreting term
"provide" as used in social host liability statute to encompass the indirect
furnishing of alcoholic beverages), cert. denied,
140 N.J. 276 (1995).

2. THE 2600 DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTORY VIOLATIONS OF THE
DMCA

In addition, the 2600 defendants' scheme also constitutes a "contributory"
violation of Section 1201(a)(2). Section 1201 does not expressly address
contributory liability principles. Nevertheless, courts have applied such
principles, even absent a specific legislative mandate, where they "advance
the goals of the particular federal statute which plaintiffs allege has been
violated." See American Telephone and Telegram Co. v. Winback
and Conserve Program, Inc. ("AT&T"), 42 F.3d
1421 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
514 U.S. 1103 (1995); Sony
Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464 U.S. 417, 435 (1984) ("vicarious liability is
imposed in virtually all areas of the law,
and the concept of contributory infringement is merely
a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which
it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another")
(emphasis supplied); Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v.
Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982)
(contributory liability available under Lanham Act despite lack of explicit
statutory language providing for such liability). The DMCA was specifically
enacted to augment federal copyright law by prohibiting dissemination of
technological devices designed to circumvent "technological measure[s] that
effectively control[] ... access to a [copyrighted] work ...." 17 U.S.C.
§ 1201 (a)(2). This Court expressly found that "[i]n enacting the DMCA,
Congress found that the restriction of technologies for the circumvention
of technological means of protecting copyrighted works 'facilitate[s] the
robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce,
communications, research, development, and education' by 'mak[ing] digital
networks safe places to disseminate and exploit copyrighted materials."'
(Mem. Op. at 18) (quoting S. REP. No. 105-90, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998).)
"It is a tool to protect copyright in the digital age." (Mem. Op. at 18,
20.)

Imposing liability on the 2600 defendants for engaging in a scheme which
both encourages and provides substantial assistance to others to provide
DeCSS for quick and easy downloading unquestionably serves the overall purpose
of the DMCA. See Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999)
(defendant contributorily liable for making reference on its web site to
other sites containing infringing matter, and encouraging users to go to
those sites).

3. THIS COURT HAS BROAD POWER TO FASHION AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY

This Court is empowered to fashion, and plaintiffs are entitled to, a remedy
that effectively protects plaintiffs' rights under the anti-circumvention
provisions of the DMCA. There is a critical "distinction between a statutory
right and the equitable relief necessary to protect the right." Timothy R.
Cahn & Joshua R. Floum, Applying The Safe Distance Rule
In Counterfeiting Cases: A Call For The Use of Broad Equitable Power to Prevent
Black and Gray Marketeering, 8 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP.
MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 487, 490 (Winter 1998). Thus, "a court's equitable
powers to secure rights created by statute may include the enjoining of conduct
otherwise lawful under the statute when the injunction is tailored to vindicate
the statutory rights." Id.
(citing ES Development, Inc.
v. RWM Enterp., Inc., 939 F.2d 547, 557-58 (8th Cir.
1991) (enjoining defendant automobile dealers from communicating with their
manufacturers even though such communications constituted commercial speech
protected under the First Amendment), cert. denied,
502 U.S. 1097 (1992)); 1 DAN B. DOBBS, DOBBS LAW
OF REMEDIES 114 (2d ed. 1993) ("Because injunctions can provide many different
means and terms, they may at times be tailored to forbid
acts that are not themselves wrongs . . . .")).6
Here, for the injunction to have any meaning, and to vindicate plaintiffs'
rights under the DMCA, the 2600 defendants must be precluded from engaging
in activities which (a) are for all practical purposes identical to the
activities which the Court has already enjoined, and (b) accomplish the same
thing that the plaintiffs sought to, and the Court did, enjoin  the
widespread proliferation of DeCSS. Indeed, the 2600 defendants' activities
described above are part and parcel of what the Court aptly characterized
as "frenzied efforts to mirror and otherwise disseminate the program in .
. . an attempt . . . to get this so widely disseminated that the genie never
could be put back into the bottle . . . ." (Hr'g. Tr. at 50; see also
id. at 61-62; Mem. Op. at 22 (noting that defendants' "posting is part
of a course of conduct the clear purpose of which is the violation of
law").)

____________________

6See also Oral-B Laboratories,
Inc. v. Mi-Lor Corp., 810 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir. 1987) (defendant
who had already been enjoined from infringing plaintiff's trade dress was
prohibited from engaging in activities which, if viewed in isolation, might
not have been actionable); Supply Manufacturing Co. v. King Trimmings,
Inc., 220 F. Supp. 947, 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) (although defendants' marks,
when viewed in isolation, might not have been confusingly similar to plaintiffs'
mark, use of those marks by defendant was "transparent attempt to circumvent
the injunction against use of" plaintiff's mark and, in "light of the entire
history of defendant's activities," was enjoined).

In Playboy Enterp., Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publ., Inc., 939 F. Supp.
1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), the Court issued an injunction in 1981 which barred
the defendant from, inter alia, publishing, printing, distributing
or selling, in the United States, an English-language male sophisticate magazine
which used the word "PLAYMEN" or any other word confusingly similar to
plaintiff's ''PLAYBOY" mark. Fifteen years later, the defendant sought to
take advantage of the new Internet technology to circumvent the injunction,
by creating an Internet site featuring the "PLAYMEN" name. Defendant created
the site by uploading the images onto a web server located in Italy. Recognizing
that it had "neither the jurisdiction or the desire to prohibit the creation
of Internet sites around the globe," the Court nevertheless held that although
the offending activity occurred on a foreign web site, and although the 1981
injunction did not bar defendant from maintaining the foreign web site, the
Court retained jurisdiction over the defendant for the purpose of enforcing
the injunction, and it could therefore prohibit access to the sites in the
U.S. by barring the defendant from accepting subscriptions from U.S. customers.
Id. at 1036 n.4, 1046. Central to
the Court's analysis was the recognition that "allowing the Defendant to
contravene the clear intent of the Injunction by permitting it to distribute
pictural images over the Internet [by virtue of the foreign web site] would
emasculate the injunction." Id.
at 1037.

Here, similarly, the preliminary injunction does not bar non-party sites
from providing DeCSS (unless those non-parties are "doing so in active concert
or participation with" the 2600 defendants, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)). Plaintiffs are aware that
to prevent such third parties from posting DeCSS, they will have to take
action against those third parties (which they have done, and will continue
to do). But the Court does
have jurisdiction over these
defendants, and can prevent them from acting as a
virtual "distribution center" for DeCSS through a linking scheme purposefully
designed to emasculate the injunction.

B. THE 2600 DEFENDANTS' LINKING SCHEME IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT

This Court has already concluded that "[a]pplication
of the DMCA to prohibit production and dissemination of DeCSS . . . does
not violate the First Amendment." (Mem. Op. at 23.) Plaintiffs respectfully
submit that this premise holds true whether that dissemination occurs by
reason of direct posting of downloadable DeCSS on one's own web site, or
by deliberately linking to downloadable DeCSS on a third party web site 
processes which, for the reasons described above, are effectively identical.

Indeed, if one engages in the balancing approach undertaken by the Court
in granting the preliminary injunction (see
Mem. Op. at 20-21), the scale tips just as decidedly
in plaintiffs' favor when the defendants are linking to DeCSS as when they
are posting the utility. The hyperlinks to DeCSS -- like DeCSS itself --
are computer code, with minimal, if any,7 expressive content
(see id. at 20), while the
interest served by prohibiting such hyperlinks -- maintaining the inviolability
of copyrighted DVD motion picture content -- remains just as weighty on
plaintiffs' side of the balance.

____________________

7 For the reasons submitted in support of plaintiffs' original
application for a preliminary injunction, under these circumstances providing
a hyperlink to a site containing DeCSS is not "speech" within the purview
of the First Amendment. (See
Reply Mem. of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs'
App. for a Preliminary Injunction at 6-7.) As the Court pointed out, even
if such links are considered
"speech," that is merely the "beginning of the analysis." (Mem. Op. at 16.)
Similarly, plaintiffs contend that even if linking to sites containing DeCSS
involves some expressive content, such linking may be constitutionally enjoined.
(See Mem. Op. at
22-23.)

Even if the Court were to find that the act of linking contained some expressive
content, that would not shield such activities from the reach of this Court.
As this Court noted, Congress may constitutionally proscribe certain activities
-- even if those activities are imbued with some expressive content -- where
they are "part of a course of conduct the clear purpose of which is the violation
of law." (Mem. Op. at 22 citing Giboney v. Empire Storage
& Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) (First Amendment
did not prohibit injunction against peaceful picketing activities as picketing
was integral to course of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute).)
Whether accomplished through posting or linking, the "principal object" of
the 2600 defendants' dissemination of DeCSS is copyright infringement
(id. at 23) and "[a]pplication
of the DMCA to prohibit [such] dissemination of DeCSS therefore does not
violate the First Amendment." (Id.)

Moreover, this case presents a unique situation where
the regulation of the 2600 defendants' linking scheme will ultimately serve
to foster other constitutional interests, namely, the
plaintiffs' First Amendment right
to speak (through their copyrighted motion pictures), and the protection
of plaintiffs' constitutionally mandated copyright interests. As the Supreme
Court has recognized, copyright protection reflects the notion that
"encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance
public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in 'Science and
useful Arts.' " Mazer v. Stein,
347 U.S. 201, 219 (1953). And, as this Court correctly
noted, the widespread dissemination of DeCSS "would discourage artistic progress
and undermine the goals of copyright" (Mem. Op. at 21), and would therefore
undermine the values of free expression.

The 2600 defendants may argue, as they began to do at
the preliminary injunction hearing, that by enjoining linking, the Court
will be stifling expression which may or may not exist on the linked-to sites.
Indeed, the 2600 defendants argued at the hearing that such linked-to sites
may include the web sites of news institutions such as The San Pedro Mercury
News. (See Hr'g. Tr. at 82-83.) This
argument is a red herring for two reasons. First,
it ignores the fact that the 2600 defendants are
not incidentally or accidentally linking to sites which may or may not include
expression and which may or may not include downloadable DeCSS. They are
engaged in a deliberate scheme to encourage others to post DeCSS, request
the URL Internet addresses of those postings, and then create hyperlinks
to those postings to deliver DeCSS "virtually," and no less conveniently,
through the 2600 site. Thus the 2600 defendants have full knowledge that
the hyperlinks they are providing contain downloadable DeCSS.
Second, to the extent that
any linked-to sites contain expression along with DeCSS, the effect of enjoining
the hyperlinks will not be
to remove that expression. The linked-to sites will still exist, and any
expression contained thereon will be available for anyone to read. The injunction
will merely prevent these
defendants from operating a DeCSS utility distribution
center.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should modify the January 20, 2000
preliminary injunction by prohibiting the 2600 defendants from "linking"
to DeCSS or any other technological device primarily designed or produced
for the purpose of circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded
by CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively
controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works, or effectively protects
plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture,
adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their
copyrighted works, or portions thereof. The Court should also grant plaintiffs
leave to make largely conforming amendments to the complaint.

1. This is a Second Amended Complaint for injunctive relief and related relief
against Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" ("Corley") and 2600
Enterprises, Inc. ("2600 Enterprises") (collectively, the "2600
Defendants"), an individual and/or entity responsible for proliferating
a software device that unlawfully defeats the DVD copy protection and access
control system -- the Content Scramble System ("CSS") -- so that
individuals can unlawfully gain access to, and/or make, distribute, and/or
otherwise electronically transmit or perform unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs'
copyrighted motion pictures and other audiovisual works. The acts of the
2600 Defendants, which are described more fully below, violate the provisions
of the United States Copyright Act governing circumvention of copyright
protection systems, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.

The Parties

2. Plaintiff Universal City Studios, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Delaware.

3. Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Delaware.

4. Plaintiff Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Delaware.

5. Plaintiff TriStar Pictures, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware.

6. Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

7. Plaintiff time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., is a limited partnership
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

8. Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Delaware.

9. Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

10. Plaintiffs are eight motion picture studios. Each plaintiff is engaged
in the business of producing, manufacturing, and/or distribution of copyrightable
and copyrighted material, including, specifically, motion pictures. Plaintiffs,
either directly or through their affiliates, distribute motion pictures
theatrically, via television broadcast, and on portable media such as
videocassette tapes and digital versatile discs ("DVDs") for distribution
in the home video market. In the course of its business, each plaintiff or
its predecessor in interest obtained ownership of the United States copyrights,
the exclusive reproduction, adaptation, and/or distribution rights under
United States copyrights, and/or state statutory and common law rights, in
various motion pictures in such DVDs. Plaintiffs are the leading producers
and distributors of motion pictures in DVD format in the United States, including
such recent blockbusters as "Titanic" and "The Matrix," and approximately
4,000 titles which have been released in the United States on DVD to date.
Current industry estimates place DVD sales at over 1,000,000 units per week.

11. On information and belief, defendant Corley, who, on information and
belief, uses nom de net "Emmanuel Goldstein, either resides or has
his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York. [Address omitted
by Cryptome.]

12. On information and belief, defendant 2600 Enterprises is a not-for=profit
corporation duly incorporated unde the laws of the State of New York, with
an address for service of process at Box 752, Middle Island, NY 11953.

15. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that each
Defendant resides or has his principal place of business, or is duly incorporated
in the State of New York.

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1301(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) as (a) this is
a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise
to the claims occurred, and/or (b) all of the defendants reside in the State
of New York and this is a judicial district in which some of the defendants
reside, and/or (c) this is a judicial district in which some of the defendants
may be found, and there is no judicial district in which the action may otherwise
be brought, and/or this is a judicial district in which the corporate defendants
are subject to personal jurisdiciton.

Background Facts

DVD Technology

17. With the advent of the VCR and videocassette tapes, home viewing of motion
pictures became a convenient, inexpensive way to enjoy motion pictures. DVDs
are 5-inch-wide discs that hold full-length motion pictures and are the most
current technological advancement for private home viewing of motion pictures.
This technology significantly improves the clarity and the overall quality
of the motion picture when played on a television screen or computer monitor.

18. DVDs incorporating full-length motion pictures, together with additional
and ancillary features such as interviews and alternative sound tracks, can
be played back for viewing in the home by dedicated, free standing "DVD players"
and by personal computers configured with a DVD "drive" and additional hardware
or software modules, sometimes referred to as "media players."

19. DVDs contain digital information. When motion pictures in form are digital
copied or transmitted, the clarity and overall quality of the motion pictures
do not suffer (as they do when a copy is made from an analog source, such
as a videocassette). Moreover, the fact that the motion pictures contained
on DVDs are in digital format allows any unauthorized copies of those motion
pictures from DVDs to be transmitted over the Internet, stored in computer
memory, and duplicated for unlawful sale, transfer and exchange. Once these
copies are in the hands of another user, the unlawful process can begin once
again because the copies have the clarity and quality of the original DVDs
containing the motion picture.

Contents Scramble Systems ("CSS")

20. Because motion pictures in unprotected digital format on DVDs would be
subject to ready unlimited copying and create a threat to the market viability
of DVD technology, the plaintiffs were reluctant to release valuable film
libraries and new film releases without the implementation of a copy protection
and access control system. Plaintiffs therefore ultimately accepted a
copy protection and access control system developed by Matshusita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Corporation -- the Contents Scramble System
("CSS") -- in order to provide security to the copyrighted contents of DVDs
and thereby provide protection for the copyrighted content against unauthorized
copying. CSS includes elements of encryption and other security and
authentication measures that require DVD playback devices, including
appropriately configured personal computers, to operate with certain keys
in order to descramble and intelligibly play back copies of motion pictures
from DVDs. All members of the DVD industry, including software and hardware
manufacturers of DVD players, DVD replicators and the content providers --
the motion picture studios -- adopted CSS as direct licensees or by contracting
through CSS licensees.

21. Each of the plaintiffs relied upon the security provided by CSS in
manufacturing, protecting and distributing to the public copyrighted motion
pictures in DVD format. Those motion pictures, may of which involved investments
of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, were distributed on
CSS-protected DVDs.

The Descrambling of CSS and the Creation and Proliferation of the "DeCSS"
Utility

22. On information and belief, hackers in Europe were able to descramble
the encryption on DVDs and create -- and post on the World Wide Web -- an
unauthorized utility commonly referred to as "DeCSS," which allows motion
pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally accessed and copied.

23. Subsequently, defendant Eric Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein and/or defendant
2600 Enterprises posted DeCSS on his/its Internet Web site,
www.2600.com/news/1999/1112-files. In addition, Corley and/or 2600 Enterprises
has designed and incorporated in that site "hyper links" to DeCSS. Corley's
amd/or 2600 Enterprises' site states that DeCSS is a "free DVD decoder" that
allows "people to copy DVDs." Corley's and/or 2600 Enterprises' site also
exhorts others ("as many of you as possible all throughout the world") to
"take and mirror [the DeCSS] files. . . ."

24. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 25 [sic], inclusive.

25. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise
traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,
that --

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person
with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure
that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) provides similar prohibitions
against the manufacture, importation or provision of any technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or
produced for the purpose of cricumventing a technological measure that
effectively protgects the rights of copyright owners.

26. The 2600 Defendants, and each of them, offers to the public, provides,
or otherwise traffic in, DeCSS through his/its Internet website.

27. CSS is a technological measure that (a) effectively controls access to
works protected by the Copyright Act, and (b) effectively protects rights
of copyright owners to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture,
adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyright
works or portions thereof.

28. DeCSS (a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing
the protection afforded by CSS, (b) has only limited commercially significant
purpose or use other than to circumvent CSS or the protection afforded by
CSS, and/or (c) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert
with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing CSS or the protection
afforded by CSS.

29. By offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS,
the 2600 defendants, and each of them, have violated the provisions governing
Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems set forth in the Copyright
Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 etseq.

30. Unless enjoined by this Court, the 2600 defendants' violations will continue.
Plaintiffs' remedy at law is not adequate. Protection of Plaintiffs' rights
must include an injunction.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the 2600 defendants, and
each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For a grant of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
the 2600 defendants, their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,
subsidiaries, affiliates, assigns, licensees, distributees, attorneys and
all other persons in active concert or privity or in participation with them,
enjoining them from:

(a) posting on or linking to any Internet web site, or in any other way
manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise
trafficking in DeCSS, and

(b) posting on or linking to any Internet web site, or in any other way
manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise
trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part
thereof, that:

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or
circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological
measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs'
copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control
whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or
distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof,

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than
to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other
technological measure adopted by the Plaintiffs' that effectively controls
access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs'
rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt,
publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted
works or portions thereof, or

(iii) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them
with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or circumventing the protection
afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs
that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively
protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce,
manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies
of their copyrighted works or portions thereof.

2. Certain terms used in this prayer for relief are defined as follows:

(a) "DVD" means digital versatile disc.

(b) "CSS" means the Contents Scramble System used to encrypt, scramble or
otherwise protect the contents of certain DVDs from unauthorized access or
copying.

(c) "DeCSS" means any computer program, file or other device that may be
used to decrypt or unscramble the contents of DVDs that are protected, or
otherwise to circumvent the protection afforded, by CSS and that permits
the unauthorized access or copying of the contents or any portion thereof.

(d) A "hyperlink" means software instructions which, when executed, cause
a signal to be sent to another location where data or material can be retrieved
for viewing, copying or further transmission.

(e) "Linking" means provision by the defendants, at their respective websites,
of hyperlinks to other websites which are offering to the public, providing,
providing hyperlinks to, or othervvise trafficking in DeCSS or any technology,
product, service, device, component, or part thereof described in paragraph
2(b).

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.